Stage adaptation of Hitchcock's '39 Steps' worth it

Wednesday

Sep 26, 2007 at 12:01 AMSep 26, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Theater Review

If you were to pick the film genre that’s least suited for adapting to the stage, you might choose action movies. With their big casts, extravagant locations and hair-raising stunts, action stories rely on a fast pace and tight editing — a bad match with the clunky machinations of live theater.

But that’s probably why writer Patrick Barlow chose to adapt “The 39 Steps.” He saw the inherent humor in taking an action story and throwing it in the lap of four actors, forcing them to play countless characters while re-enacting high-tech scenes that have no business on the stage. The lower-budget the solution, the funnier the results — an empty picture frame being held by an actor, for example, is a window into a house, and if the actor has to lower it a bit in order to step through it, then so be it.

Alexander Stevens

Theater Review

If you were to pick the film genre that’s least suited for adapting to the stage, you might choose action movies. With their big casts, extravagant locations and hair-raising stunts, action stories rely on a fast pace and tight editing — a bad match with the clunky machinations of live theater.

But that’s probably why writer Patrick Barlow chose to adapt “The 39 Steps.” He saw the inherent humor in taking an action story and throwing it in the lap of four actors, forcing them to play countless characters while re-enacting high-tech scenes that have no business on the stage. The lower-budget the solution, the funnier the results — an empty picture frame being held by an actor, for example, is a window into a house, and if the actor has to lower it a bit in order to step through it, then so be it.

This stage version of Alfred Hitchcock’s “39 Steps” is an obstacle course, and the joy for the audience is in watching the actors solve all the problems, or — just as enjoyable — watching them throw their hands up in defeat. A West End hit that’s Broadway bound, “39 Steps” plays at the Huntington Theatre in Boston through Oct. 12.

Charles Edwards snags top billing. He’s the only actor who plays just one role — Richard Hannay, a Londoner whose trip to the theater one night thrusts him into the world of international espionage. It’s 1935, and Europe is spinning into war. Richard, who suddenly finds himself wrongly accused of murder, must dodge the law until he solves the great mystery of the “39 steps.” (Sounds serious? It isn’t.) Edwards apparently was a hit in the West End production, and why not? He’s got the heightened delivery and sharp-eyed squint that’s a dead-on mock-up of all those black-and-white noir mysteries of the 1930s, filled with hard-boiled men and dangerous women. It’s hard to tell which is more arched — Edwards’ eyebrows or his performance.

Edwards may be at the center of the show, but Arnie Burton and Cliff Saunders are at its heart. They are the two men, mostly teamed together, who shuffle roles as quickly as they can (in one Marx Brothers moment) shuffle hats.

Jennifer Ferrin is also a prize, a beauty in each of the half-dozen mysterious characters she inhabits. She could convince any man to become a war-era spy.

The show belongs to the actors, but, of course, the director gets a big assist. Maria Aitken masterfully gives the cast just a little bit less than they need to make it all work, and the fun is in watching them cope.

But, in the end, “The 39 Steps” isn’t about the limits of the stage, it’s about the magic of the stage. In an odd way, the show’s ridiculously minimalist train scene — four boxes, oblique lighting, and actors who convince you they’re on top of a hurtling train — is more absorbing than anything Steven Spielberg could muster with his million-dollar budgets. That’s because while Spielberg so ably does all the work for you at the movie theater, audiences are active participants in the magic of live theater. If the train scene in this “39 Steps” works for you — and it will — your own imagination deserves part of the credit.

It’s a romp. And, it should be noted, it’s little more than a romp. These characters are as thin as Richard’s pencil moustache. It would seem possible to tell this same funny story and yet still have a central relationship that you cared about, especially with the likeable Edwards and the alluring Ferrin in the cast. But that’s one more step than “39 Steps” takes. It’s content instead to just look good — actors as athletes rather than explorers of the human condition.

But when theater so often gets attached to Important Subjects that keep patrons away in droves, there’s nothing wrong with a show that makes you smile and laugh (and rarely think) from start to finish. If there’s someone in your life who you have trouble dragging to the theater because they want to be entertained and not challenged, then take them to “39 Steps.” It’s not only a light and enjoyable night out, it’s also, in an odd and effective way, a kind of primer on the unique magic of the theater.

Sister Publications

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
Times Reporter ~ 629 Wabash Ave. NW New Philadelphia, OH 44663 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service